viewtopic.php?p=158020#p158020" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Read again:skynightblaze wrote:There is no proof that quran has been corroborated enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Forty scribes, of which 22 are mentioned by name in the Hadith, each verse validated by the oral testimony of at least 2 companions.At Medina, about forty companions are believed to have acted as scribes for the Qur'an. Twenty-two such persons are mentioned
by name in the Hadith. Among them were well known persons, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah
bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa and Umm Salama....
The task required ibn Thabit to collect written copies of the Qur'an, with each verse having validated with the oral testimony of at least
two companions. Usually the written copies were verified by himself and Umar...
Themselves supervised by Thabit and Umar! That's not enough corroborated for SNB, stating that the ahaad hadiths are more reliable!
Another proof that you understand nihil. It's the other way around... Read again:skynightblaze wrote:The above claim is false. malik Muwatta was considered by Bukhari. I had showed you a link from answering islam before.The Cat wrote:How come that the long researched Muwatta of Ibn Malik ignores the so-called 'sahih' hadiths?
It's the previous well searched Muwatta that completely ignores Bukhari's hadiths. Thus they were forged later... Get it now?
That's the Muslims usual dismissive attitude when cornered, you sound exactly like AB!skynightblaze wrote:Rest of your post is repetition and I think I have already addressed them and it makes no sense to repeat the same arguments.
Skipping the following
1) The Chinese Whispers debunk 200 years of 'reliable' oral transmissions.
2) + The criteria of mutawatir and of two witnesses (2.282; 5.106; 65.2)
3) + Their absence from the former, years-searched, Muwatta of Malik.
3) All of the above are proving the unreliability of the 'sahih' hadiths.
4) In defying the example of Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar and Ibn Thabit followed their conscience to collect the Koran.
They didn't follow his example. Thus, Muslims are too to follow their conscience first.
5) Raiding and looting was a custom -for all nomads in general-, thus you've indulged in the fallacy of Presentism.
And relying on yet another fallacy (Moving the goalposts) doesn't help your case at all.
6) A pervert Muhammad (93.7) cast no example, except in 'looking forward unto Allah' (33.21) and obeying The Messenger (ie. Gabriel).
7) The Shahada goes directly against many Koranic injunctions (3.84; 18.110). Thus 1st 'pillar of Islam' is definitively not Koranic.
8) From 4.105 and 5.44-49 we learn that Muhammad had to judge Jews and Christians,
according to their own scripture, along with bringing the new one, ie. the Koran (2.151).
9) Muslims are to obey all prophets alike. Yet no messenger has much importance by its own self, none (3.84; 18.110).
Note: The 'honest scholars' of tafsirs all went against 3.7 in attempts to biased the Koran.
Ex.: In the tafsir of 31.6 they sweared that 'lahwa al-hadeethi' meant music and not idle tales.
ie. their own tafsirs, + hadiths.
Thanks to people like snb and MbL this site is developing the same mentality as Sunnite's.
Two sides of the same dismissive clan/clowns attitude.